get_crewList astronauts who have flown (or are assigned to) SpaceX Crew Dragon missions. Returns name, agency, in-flight status, mission, role, wikipedia, and image URL. Derived from recent crewed SpaceX launches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max crew members to return (default 20, max 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crew | Yes | Array of SpaceX crew members |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting that data is 'derived from recent crewed SpaceX launches,' which hints at data recency/scope. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, and the data source caveat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, return fields, and a data-scope caveat. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the limit parameter is already described in the schema (default 20, max 50). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it also doesn't provide any extra nuance about limit behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (astronauts on SpaceX Crew Dragon missions), and specifies the exact scope (flown or assigned). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling launch tools like get_latest_launch or get_past_launches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool (when you need crew member info for Crew Dragon missions) and implicitly differentiates it from launch-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other crew/capsule types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The server is named 'spacex' but contains a vast number of tools unrelated to SpaceX, such as polymarket arbitrage, npm package scanning, and claim validation. Users and agents would struggle to determine whether this server is for SpaceX data or general-purpose queries.
The SpaceX-specific tools follow a consistent 'get_' pattern, but the majority of tools use varied naming conventions (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'remember', 'subscribe'). No unifying pattern across the set.
36 tools is a moderately large count, not extreme. However, many tools are unrelated to the server's namesake, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count could be trimmed to improve coherence.
For the SpaceX domain, the coverage is decent (launches, rockets, crew, Starlink). But the server's purpose is unclear—there are glaring gaps in a unified vision, as the Pipeworx tools are not integrated into a coherent SpaceX theme.